It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1 Million Dollars To Anyone Who Can Prove That Explosives Where Not Used At WTC

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Well here is a chance for the naysayers that say explosives where NOT used at the WTC. I don't think it's going to happen though.




No evidence? It must be conspiracy
By Mark Coultan Herald Correspondent in New York
November 21, 2005

The twin towers did not fall because aircraft hit them. Demolition explosive charges made them collapse.

If you look at close-up video you see puffs of explosives coming out the sides of the buildings as they topple. An advertisement that makes this allegation has been airing in New York for months. It ends with a voice saying: "Reopen the investigation and address the unanswered questions of 9/11."

If you go to the website www.reopen911.org... you find a series of even more startling claims.

Did a plane actually hit the Pentagon? Photos taken on September 11, 2001, show no cabin, no tail and no engines.

~~

He is offering $US1 million ($1.36 million) to anyone who can prove that explosives were not used in the World Trade Centre.






[edit on 22/11/2005 by Sauron]




posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
do you have a link to the said videos? Where puffs of smoke appear at the base?



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
That's awsome. I guess a few people on here are gonna be rich.


Anyway, the question I have is: They are asking for donations to keep the add going ($650,000 I believe). Why don't they use the million to keep the adds going? Or do you think it's better to have the contest to see if anyone can do it?

[edit on 22-11-2005 by MacMerdin]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Well all I can say is good luck, maybe Howard and crew can convince them



Snipit from Reopen 911 . org; $1 Million Contest Details



All explanations, in all parts of this contest must be supported with detailed drawings for all significant events. Particularly, explain and document with drawings and engineering the following video clips:

1) In first video at 0:02 the puffs start below the collapse.

2) At 0:05 several floors blow out at the exact same time.

3) The explosions come in waves
.
4) The 3rd video shows puffs coming out of floors far below the buckling section.

5) At 0:09 some puffs come out of single windows far below the collapse. Remember that the government claims that the elevator shafts were open chimneys so that would have been the path of least resistance to the blown out windows in the lobbies.

6) At 0:12 at the lower left corner of the building explodes ahead of the collapse.

7) The 7th video, the collapse is not floor by floor as the left side explodes approximately 4 floors ahead of the right side at the corner, not the middle of the floor as the FEMA drawings show.

8) The first north tower video the same.

9) The second North Tower video the demolition "squibs" of dust shooting out several floors below the "collapse".

10) In the last video the fireman describes how was EVERYTHING reduced to dust, everything. Not even standard controlled demolitions do that as building 7 showed. No building collapse has ever done that. Explain and document.

11) The second flash above and our screen saver show a video of pieces of the building flying UP and out over 100 meters with trails of smoke and dust following them (at 6.1 seconds you see the best example); provide details and drawings of how this happened including the trails of smoke and dust. Remember that steel is brittle, it does not flex like Iron. Therefore there is no possibility of it flexing enough to catapult itself upward.

12) This is a new requirement added on November 11, 2005: There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7. For example

Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides [Eaton] continued, ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

More



reopen911.org...




[edit on 22/11/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
thank you sauron for posting links to the videos.

Going to look now



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
That's a pretty safe bet. How would one prove that explosives weren't used? The best they could prove is that it's possible explosives weren't used.

Although I firmly believe explosives were used, even if they weren't, it can't really be proven that they weren't used. At best, it could be proven that they were used (by explosive residue, eyewitnesses, other confirmed participation) or that there's a possibility that they weren't used (no explosive residue and proof that the steel could have been hot enough to melt).

That is really confusing, isn't it! Let me try again...

Evidence of explosives (eyewitnesses) = explosives were used
No evidence of explosives = possibility explosives weren't used
Evidence of 'natural' collapse = possibility explosives weren't used

What would be proof that explosives weren't used?

Most likely this is a stunt to get more professors, engineers, etc. involved to get at the truth. Perhaps in the search for proof that explosives weren't used, they'll find out that they were.


[edit on 22-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
even if they prove explosives were used, noone could prove that terrorists were not to blame for planting the explosives



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by noslenwerd
even if they prove explosives were used, noone could prove that terrorists were not to blame for planting the explosives


Trust me, if there were explosives, whoever planted them were terrorists, regardless of the language they spoke, their country of origin or the color of their skin.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Trust me, if there were explosives, whoever planted them were terrorists, regardless of the language they spoke, their country of origin or the color of their skin.


Oh I know, but you know the point i was getting at.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Why don't these cads prove that explosives were used?



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why don't these cads prove that explosives were used?


Cads? Hmmm...

Sorry, but all the evidence was conveniently carted off by our government and shipped to another country. Sorries! Oops!

Wouldn't I love to see someone prove it, though!



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Most likely this is a stunt to get more professors, engineers, etc. involved to get at the truth. Perhaps in the search for proof that explosives weren't used, they'll find out that they were.


Yeah, the challenge is rather unreasonable despite the fact that I believe enough evidence points to explosives to make it the most credible theory.

BUT it is healthy to remember that there is no evidence in favor of the official story at all, by NIST or the FBI or anyone else, save circumstantial and extremely suspicious evidence such as the magically-fireproof ID card that survived a plane impact, the "fatty" Bin Laden tapes where Bin Laden's face has morphed since its last known version, etc., which is of course not scientific evidence in the least to support the official story.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join